Chinese Navy amphibious transport ship Changbai Shan (989) leaving the Port of Rotterdam.
Brian Stewart argues in favor of Cold War now in order to avoid Hot War later.
The fatal mistake of yesterday was to believe (or at least to pretend) that Chinaâ€™s rise could be safely accommodated without exposing the liberal order to immense risk. The fatal mistake of today, it would appear, is to imagine that America can prevail without a vigorous strategy and capable allies over such a dynamic and formidable revisionist power. The last time liberal civilization faced such a determined adversary it was the Soviet Union. It is common to regard the peaceful end of the Cold War as inevitable, but in truth its outcome was shaped by a series of decisions and policies that were by no means predetermined. Many of the global institutions of the liberal order played their part in the struggle against various forms of communist totalitarianism, but it was the strategic foresight of Washington and the global deployment of American power that made the difference.
Despite the profound differences with Soviet communism, the challenge posed by the authoritarian ideology of the Peopleâ€™s Republic of China is redolent of the long twilight struggle that marked the second half of the 20th century. Nonetheless, prominent voices today allege that a cold war with China would be â€œunnecessaryâ€ and â€œdestructive.â€ But compared to what? The prospect of a shooting war, or even intense competition, is invoked to incapacitate prudent measures to contain Chinese power and deter Chinese aggression. For those who believe in liberal ideals and principles, it is the prospect of Chinese hegemony under the writ of the CCP that presents a more truly unnecessary and destructive scenario.
In the years ahead, the potential for armed conflict between the United States and the Peopleâ€™s Republic is by no means trivial. But as the first cold war largely demonstrated, great power conflict is not inevitable. Beyond capitulation to the CCPâ€™s strategic imperativesâ€”allowing Beijing to quash the freedom of Hong Kong, annex Taiwan, and bully other free peoples into submissionâ€”the surest way to avoid war is by adopting a robust strategy to counter Chinaâ€™s expansionism. This would entail acting in concert with like-minded nations to divest and decouple from Chinaâ€™s economy while deploying and, if necessary, wielding military force to establish what Dean Acheson once referred to as â€œsituations of strengthâ€ in the Far East.
Such a strategy would be premised on observing a distinction once made by Michael Ignatieffâ€”that adversaries whose designs â€œyou want to defeatâ€ are not necessarily enemies whose existence â€œyou have to destroy.â€ It can no longer be credibly denied that China is an adversary of the United States. If it is not treated accordingly, it may prove impossible to prevent it from becoming a full-fledged enemy.
I think his postion is inarguable. The Free World Democracies cannot keep enriching China as a trading partner if China remains determined upon combining domestic tyranny and brutality with adversarial foreign aggression.
Chinese netizens on Wednesday (May 13) discovered that YouTube is automatically blocking the Chinese term “communist bandit” within 15 seconds.
On Wednesday, human rights activist Jennifer Zeng posted a video of a person entering the epithet “communist bandit” (å…±åŒª) in the comment box beneath a YouTube video. Within 15 seconds after posting the comment, it mysteriously and inexplicably disappears.
Taiwan News typed the term in Chinese characters in the comment box in a few different YouTube videos and indeed within 15 seconds, the comment had been automatically excised. It is not clear why YouTube is automatically censoring this word.
YouTube has recently started to demonetize content that is critical of the Chinese Communist Party and China’s handling of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
H.R. McMaster warns, in the Atlantic, that China’s leaders are not friendly and have no intention of playing fair.
On November 8, 2017, Air Force One touched down in Beijing, marking the start of a state visit hosted by Chinaâ€™s president and Communist Party chairman, Xi Jinping. From my first day on the job as President Donald Trumpâ€™s national security adviser, China had been a top priority. …
Our last meeting of the state visit, in the Great Hall of the People, was with Li Keqiang, the premier of the State Council and the titular head of Chinaâ€™s government. If anyone in the American group had any doubts about Chinaâ€™s view of its relationship with the United States, Liâ€™s monologue would have removed them. He began with the observation that China, having already developed its industrial and technological base, no longer needed the United States. He dismissed U.S. concerns over unfair trade and economic practices, indicating that the U.S. role in the future global economy would merely be to provide China with raw materials, agricultural products, and energy to fuel its production of the worldâ€™s cutting-edge industrial and consumer products.
Leaving China, I was even more convinced than I had been before that a dramatic shift in U.S. policy was overdue. The Forbidden City was supposed to convey confidence in Chinaâ€™s national rejuvenation and its return to the world stage as the proud Middle Kingdom. But for me it exposed the fears as well as the ambitions that drive the Chinese Communist Partyâ€™s efforts to extend Chinaâ€™s influence along its frontiers and beyond, and to regain the honor lost during the century of humiliation. The fears and ambitions are inseparable. They explain why the Chinese Communist Party is obsessed with controlâ€”both internally and externally.
The partyâ€™s leaders believe they have a narrow window of strategic opportunity to strengthen their rule and revise the international order in their favorâ€”before Chinaâ€™s economy sours, before the population grows old, before other countries realize that the party is pursuing national rejuvenation at their expense, and before unanticipated events such as the coronavirus pandemic expose the vulnerabilities the party created in the race to surpass the United States and realize the China dream. The party has no intention of playing by the rules associated with international law, trade, or commerce. Chinaâ€™s overall strategy relies on co-option and coercion at home and abroad, as well as on concealing the nature of Chinaâ€™s true intentions. What makes this strategy potent and dangerous is the integrated nature of the partyâ€™s efforts across government, industry, academia, and the military.
And, on balance, the Chinese Communist Partyâ€™s goals run counter to American ideals and American interests.
Andrew A. Michta contends that the principles of Liberalism and Free Trade are philosophically fine, but have unacceptable drawbacks in a real world in which your trading partner is also your adversary and has no respect for human life.
By striving to â€œflattenâ€ the world (in Thomas Friedmanâ€™s memorable phrase) into a single, borderless entity in pursuit of nothing but profit and prosperity, this worldview has created huge blind spots. For example, it was powerless to predict that China would build on its early advantage in sheer numbers of low-skilled workers to lock in a dominant and increasingly powerful position for itself in global supply chains. Economies of scale played their part, as did the complementarity of the various manufacturing sectors the country strategically developed, not to mention Chinaâ€™s bullying and corrupting practices. The end result was that the costs of shifting to poorer countries would be unappetizing to corporate supply chain managers. Worse still, such thinking could not account for the fact that behind the scores of successful companies lay a monolithic, totalitarian, nationalist entity with a vision for restoring Chinaâ€™s role in the world: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
When bereft of redundancies, networks devolve to hierarchies, which in turn create winners and losers. Hierarchies do not diminish the key importance of state power in international relations. On the contrary, they enable it. As China has grown to become the seemingly irreplaceable core of a globalized economy, the CCP has pursued predatory mercantilism in its commercial relations with the West, in the process tilting the hard power balance in its favor. In an economic system that allows for the flow of technology and capital across national borders, redundancies in the supply chain are essential to the preservation of state sovereignty and government capacity to act in a crisis. The Wuhan Virus pandemic is proving so devastating because the radical centralization of market networks has allowed for failure at a single point in our supply chain to leave the system with no capacity to off-load demand onto redundant networks.
In short, globalization, as preached and practiced over the past four decades, has been shown for what it has always been: profiteering off of a vast pool of centrally controlled labor. While many vast fortunes have been made in the West as a result, and as American consumers binged on low-cost goods, the biggest winner has naturally been the Chinese Communist Party elite. And though even before the 2016 U.S. election there was a growing realization among Western captains of industry that something was not quite right with Chinaâ€™s role in the system, few were willing to ask big enough questions about the system as a whole.
The fundamental question is one of values: Is this kind of globalization compatible with liberty and democratic governance? My simple answer is no. By ignoring the role of nations in the international systemâ€”or, if not ignoring, indeed prophesying the nationâ€™s demiseâ€”globalizationâ€™s boosters have implicitly, if perhaps unwittingly, lessened the accountability of elites and downgraded the voice of voters in these matters. No citizenry, if asked, would vote for the status quoâ€”their working-class communities gutted, their security endangered, and their country made dependent on an adversarial foreign power.
All web sites occasionally have technical issues, but Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit blog is the absolute top of the heap in Conservative commentary, and it is well-supported by skilled professionals. I’ve seen it down before for a few hours, but never overnight.
My guess is that the site was taken down by a deliberate and very technically sophisticated attack in response to some posting or other criticizing the government of China and attributing to it responsibility for the COVID-19 international pandemic.
Cross Fu Manchu and the nefarious Si Fan, and the next thing you know, there’s a hamadryad in your bed.
Late yesterday, I was able to connect to Instapundit with Chrome & Explorer. Firefox still produces the same “Error establishing a database connection” message.
I have changed nothing in Firefox. Of course, an update may have.
Vanderleun suggests that clearing your cache may solve the problem. I would not be surprised if he was right.
NEW UPDATE, later 4/11:
It’s fixed. Glenn Reynolds stepped in and got it done.
Tim Blair responds to Chinese criticism of the Australian Daily Telegraph’s reporting:
The Daily Telegraph this week received a letter from the Australian Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China, who took gentle issue with our excellent coverage of the coronavirus crisis.
Following is a point-by-point response to the Consulate General and Chinaâ€™s communist dictatorship:
Recently the Daily Telegraph has published a number of reports and opinions about Chinaâ€™s response to COVID-19 that are full of ignorance, prejudice and arrogance.
If a state-owned newspaper in China received this kind of complaint, subsequent days would involve journalists waking up in prison with their organs harvested.
Tracing the origin of the virus is a scientific issue that requires professional, science-based assessment.
Sure it does. How professional and science-based was the claim published on March 12 by Chinaâ€™s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian that â€œit might be US Army who brought the epidemic to Wuhanâ€?
The origin of the virus is still undetermined, and the World Health Organization has named the novel coronavirus â€œCOVID-19â€.
The World Health Organisation also appointed Zimbabwean murderer Robert Mugabe as its Goodwill Ambassador and declared on March 2 that the â€œstigmaâ€ of the coronavirus â€œis more dangerous than the virus itselfâ€.
The World Health Organisation does a lot of stupid stuff.
So what is the real motive behind your attempt to repeatedly link the virus to China and even stating that the novel coronavirus was â€œmade in Chinaâ€?
Our motive is accuracy. Thatâ€™s why we donâ€™t link the virus to Bognor Regis or state that it was â€œmade in Panamaâ€.
The people of Wuhan made a huge effort and personal sacrifice to stop the spread of the epidemic.
Wuhanâ€™s Dr Li Wenliang indeed made a huge effort to warn people about the coronavirus outbreak. Then, as the New York Times reported: â€œIn early January, he was called in by both medical officials and the police, and forced to sign a statement denouncing his warning as an unfounded and illegal rumor.â€
And now heâ€™s dead, so thatâ€™s â€œpersonal sacrificeâ€ covered as well.
In late January, Chinaâ€™s embassy in Denmark demanded an apology from daily Jyllands-Posten after it published a cartoon of the Chinese flag with its five yellow stars represented by coronavirus particles.
Tell douchebag modernist composer John Adams to go write a new opera, Kira Davis predicts that era created by Nixon’s opening to China and of the export of industrial production to China and American reliance on cheap Chinese labor is over.
Because this is 2020 and the whole damn world seems to have gone insane overnight, we are now being told that referring to COVID-19 as anything related to China or the Chinese in any way is â€œracistâ€ and xenophobic or some other bad thing. Even though this virus originated in China. Even though either their food choices or their government is responsible for unleashing this on the globe. It makes no sense, but none of this is making much sense right now. It certainly feels like we donâ€™t have all the information and thatâ€™s worrisome given the level of response weâ€™ve been seeing from our government. There is a lot that we, the people donâ€™t know.
But we do know one thing right about now. One thing is becoming more and more clear with each passing moment.
When this is all over we are f***ing done with China.
The Wall Street Journal introduces us to a Chinese spirit ranked high as a status symbol in the mystic East, whose taste is both admired and despised.
Chinaâ€™s Kweichow Moutai Co. has become the worldâ€™s most valuable liquor company thanks to a fiery spirit that can cost nearly $400 a bottle.
The spirit is baijiu, a Chinese liquor made by fermenting sorghum or other grains in brick or mud pits. The companyâ€™s version, known simply as Moutai, has a long association with Chinaâ€™s Communist leaders, and has become a homegrown status symbol for affluent Chinese.
One drawback: many people canâ€™t stand it.
The taste is â€œvery much like ethanol,â€ said Jenny Miao, a 26-year-old market researcher in Shanghai. At dinners with clients, she said she sometimes has to toast with Moutai, but will then drink water to wash away the aftertaste.
Baijiu detractors say the taste reminds them of paint stripper or kerosene, especially the cheap varieties. It does have many genuine fans, who laud baijiuâ€™s complexity and distinct flavor varietiesâ€”strong, light, soy-sauce, and rice aroma.
One liquor website describes Moutai as having â€œa silky mouthfeelâ€ and says it carries â€œan undertone of baking spice.â€ Other reviewers say the drink conjures tastes of nuts, sesame paste, mushrooms, cheese, and dark chocolate.
Moutai is usually served in tiny glasses that contain about a third of an ounce of the spirit. Shots are frequently downed to show respect for someone making a toast. People in China say â€œgan beiâ€ before drinking, which literally means â€œdry cup.â€